Britain and Italy begin joint development of next - generation fighter jet - Will Japan's next - generation fighter jet be a game changer?
2022-12-11
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
It has been announced that the UK and Italy will jointly develop Japan's next-generation fighter aircraft. It had already been announced that Japan would develop a successor to the F-２, but now Japan has agreed to jointly participate with the UK and Italy. Prime Minister Sunak said the joint venture would create thousands of jobs in the UK and strengthen security ties.
It has advanced stealth characteristics, and AI functions support humans when the pilot is under extreme stress or unable to respond to a situation. If necessary, it can be operated without pilot instructions and can fire supersonic missiles.
Since the １９９０s, the Ministry of Defense's Technical Research Headquarters (currently the Defense Equipment Agency) has developed the advanced technology demonstration aircraft X-２ to explore the possibility of developing a future stealth fighter F-３ (tentative name) using Japanese technology.
The X-２ aircraft underwent a total of ３２ flight tests until October ３１, ２０１７, verifying its stealth and maneuverability. This demonstrated that Japan has the ability to produce the F-３ domestically.
Among the ６th generation fighter jets currently being developed by various countries, the F-３ will have the highest performance. This is a fighter jet that truly represents the evolution of Made in Japan technology.
It is clear that the F-３ fighter will play an important role in NATO's strategy in the future, and it will be a game changer in China policy due to its clear performance differences. The future of Japan joining NATO has become a reality.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Continuing attacks on the Gaza Strip - What is the definition of a civilian? | The atomic bomb was dropped without any warning.
Regarding the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the invasion of Ukraine, I understand that the concept of war criminals under international law is extremely weak, but I would like to ask about the definitions of civilians, civilian facilities, military personnel, and military facilities. After these wars are over, the international community will need to be redefined.
According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are members of the National Guard and are allowed to own firearms according to the Constitution's interpretation. Are they civilians or soldiers? For example, in South Korea, where a conscription system is in place, those who have completed their conscription period are registered as reservists. Are they civilians or soldiers?
In the Nanjing Incident, the commander of the Kuomintang army fled, and the Kuomintang army changed into civilian clothes and fled into a private house, where they fought using civilians as shields, but were they civilians or soldiers? I wonder if the private house they barricaded themselves in had become a military facility at that point. Or will it still be a private house?
At the Tokyo Trials, Rabe testified that the Japanese military did not fire on the Nanjing Safety Zone, calling the Japanese invasion a massacre. Civilians in Nanjing were able to escape to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was demarcated by international law. The Gaza Strip is approximately 50km from north to south, and evacuation to the south would take up to 25km, making it possible to evacuate in one day.
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier? At the very least, are they risking their lives to protect their homes? Are they civilians or soldiers?
In other words, the international law that judged Japan in the past is weak to this extent, and even today it criticizes the killing of civilians based on this idea, but does not deny wars based on the exercise of the right of self-defense. I'm watching this battle in it. What should be answered is a clear division between civilians and soldiers.
It is said that there were 122 air raids on Tokyo, but each time did the US military notify Japanese civilians that they were about to carry out an air raid? Or, before the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a bomb of another dimension will be dropped that will cause damage over a wide area. Did Truman tell them that it would be difficult to survive there? If it had been done, would Japanese civilians at the time have been evacuated or would they have remained to fight?
Such international laws only have a deterrent effect and have no meaning in actual war.
The curse of primary balance has been lost for 30 years, and now is the time for fiscal spending.
The lost 30 years were born from the curse of fiscal surplus
Why not use fiscal stimulus to address the national crisis?
Japan used to be the same as today's China
Why did Japan go for austerity?
30 years of innovation only to be stolen
Only Councilor Sanae Takaichi answered these questions clearly
The curse of a primary balance surplus has become an excellent material for opposition parties to appeal to the government for fiscal austerity. Yoichi Takahashi has said that he does not mind fiscal stimulus, or printing money, up to the inflation target of 2%.
Both Prime Minister Abe and Policy Research Council Chairman Takaichi have set an inflation target of 2%. In the first place, the topic of primary balance became popular after the bubble burst.
As many large companies go bankrupt, the government repeatedly imposes fiscal stimulus, resulting in deficits and financial bankruptcy. The bursting of the bubble was a national economic crisis.
So when is the government going to do something about the national crisis without spending money? In 1989, 32 of the 50 companies in the world by market capitalization were Japanese companies, but by 2019, there was only one Japanese company, and that number had disappeared. Ta.
During the bubble period, Japan was to America what China is today. It is true that growth was not based on illegal business like in China, but there is no doubt that it was a threat to the American economy.
The United States should have predicted Japan's bubble would burst. Or maybe it's a country that can play a role in triggering this.
If Japan had been able to implement bold fiscal stimulus after the bubble burst, it would have been possible to quickly overcome the aftereffects and return to a growth trajectory. Japan is among 11 countries subject to currency manipulation monitoring announced by the U.S. Treasury Department on December 3 of this year.
Trade friction is at the root of the current U.S.-China relationship. In addition, the defense of East Asia was also involved, and Japan at the time was also experiencing trade friction between Japan and the United States.
Even after the bursting of the bubble economy, Japanese companies have continued to innovate in a variety of ways. i-mode was the world's first mobile phone to connect to the Internet, the all-in-one concept of integrating a camera, calculator, memo pad, etc. in a bag into a mobile phone, and mixi was the original social network.
These ideas became the exclusive domain of American GAFA. Even though Japan was in the bud of creating a new industrial structure, it ran out of water and nutrients.
So why or who put a stop to it?
Internal pressure, external pressure, various things can be imagined. Japan's balance sheet shows that its finances are sound, and fiscal stimulus will not cause a national fiscal collapse. This is exactly what was at issue in the last presidential election. There are two points: fiscal spending and national defense.
Councilor Takaichi was the only one who clearly answered that question, and I had no idea what the other candidates were saying.
Japanese economy continues to fly low. We need a rocket engine to get back on the growth track.
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
Public opinion without examining Abenomics - there is no point in criticizing it based on contradictory premises.
There are some surveys and opinions in public opinion that Abenomics has ruined Japan, but is that true? First of all, what is Abenomics? Were you asking people who answered the same question as in the poll, or were you asking people you didn't know? I wonder if asking someone I don't know will give me the results I expected. First, let's review the three arrows of Abenomics.
Three arrows of Abenomics
Bold monetary policyFlexible fiscal policyGrowth strategy to stimulate private investment
Monetary policy is still ongoing, but former Prime Minister Abe has said that the consumption tax increase was decided in advance and was carried out at a time when it could not be postponed, so he was unable to fire a second arrow. In other words, Abenomics is actually the first arrow in a variety of environments. In other words, I would understand if there was an evaluation of the fact that it did not advance to the second stage, but I have doubts about evaluating Abenomics itself.
Next, I will list some of the achievements of Abenomics.
Main achievements of Abenomics
The total national and local tax revenue will reach a record high of 107 trillion yen in fiscal 2019, up from 78.7 trillion yen in fiscal 2012. The stock price, which was around 8,000 yen, rose to over 24,000 yen under the Abe administration. Public pension investment profits increased by 57.6 trillion yen in seven and a half years. The effective job opening ratio was 83 job openings for every 100 people in 2012, and 164 job openings for every 100 people in 2019. Business operators improved their treatment due to the labor shortage. The minimum hourly wage rose from 749 yen in 2012 to 901 yen in 2019. The rate of children from single-parent households going on to university increased significantly from 23.9% to 41.9%.
Sanaenomics (Japanese Economic Resilience Plan) will be published. Representative Sanae Takaichi announced a policy to carry on Abenomics during the last presidential election.
Sanaenomics three arrows
Financial easingFlexible fiscal stimulus in times of emergencyBold crisis management investment/growth investment
What they have in common is that monetary easing policy will continue, and if the Takauchi Cabinet is elected, the government will implement aggressive fiscal policy.
The fact that the Japanese government's balance sheet was introduced for the first time in 1995 means that the Japanese government did not have the concept of strategic investment, which companies take for granted. How can you invest without a balance sheet or cash flow statement? It was only a matter of being able to compare the income and expenditure for a single year, or the previous year. The term "primary balance" has come to be used like crazy. At that time, Japan believed that deregulation would revive the economy, and the government repeatedly took the approach of relaxing regulations through legal revisions.
As a result, the Japanese government was unable to rebuild the national economy or make strategic investments for economic growth after the collapse of the bubble, which was an unprecedented economic crisis. More than 30 years have passed since we stubbornly closed the doors. Then, companies moved their manufacturing sectors to emerging countries, and GDP and tax revenues mainly went to neighboring countries such as China, creating a dual wage structure of dispatched labor in order to prevent an increase in the number of unemployed people in Japan. . The economic disparity that arose from this process is said to be one of the causes of the current declining birthrate.
So, has Abenomics ruined Japan? Would that also mean denying Sanaenomics? Or will we continue to turn down investments from the government as we have been doing, paying close attention to the primary balance under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance and listening to the beautiful words of fiscal consolidation? The point of contention should be to gather opinions on whether or not bold fiscal spending by the government is necessary. In any case, regardless of whether the policy is better or not, there are parts where it seems like the point at issue is not policy at all, but just an extension of a personal attack, which is unfortunate.
